High Court · 2025

Petitioner :- Ram Kumar Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Of Food And Civil Supplies Lko. And 6 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Shikha Srivastava,Pallavi Singh,Richa Srivastava,Suneel Kumar Singh Kalhans Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Rajesh Kumar Singh Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.

1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel and Sri Satish Kumar Sharma, who has filed Vakalatnama on behalf of respondent no.7. The Vakalatnama is taken on record.

2. The present petition has been filed challenging the order dated 21.04.2025 whereby, the appeal preferred by the respondent no.7 was admitted and an interim order was passed in favour of the respondent no.7.

3. The contention of the Counsel for the petitioner is that after the cancellation of the license of the respondent no.7, in an open meeting, the petitioner was selected and the selection was subject to the approval by the Tehsil Level Committee, as such, he has filed a caveat in appeal, however, he was not heard prior to passing of the order dated 21.04.2025 by the appellate authority. The Counsel for the petitioner relying upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ram Kumar vs State of U.P. and others: AIR 2022 SC 4704 to argue that the petitioner had a right to be heard.

4. Considering the said judgment, the fact remains that the petitioner had not even been allotted the fair price shop in question and only a recommendation has been made in his favour, the judgment in the case of Ram Kumar (Supra) would of no avail considering the fact that the petitioner has no right till the allotment happened in his favour.

5. The Counsel for the petitioner further places reliance on the judgment of this Court in the case of S.S. Barathokey vs Chairman, U.P. Seeds and Tarai Development Corporation Limited: Writ Petition No.4537 (SS) of 1992, decided on 19.04.1993, wherein, Chapter XXII Rule 5 was interpreted and the following was observed in paras 13 and 14: "13. A single Judge of this Court in the case of Nainital Bank Limited V. Munsif, Nainital and others (1992(1) LDR 70) has held that an interim order which has been passed in absence of a party who has put in appear- ance, is to be recalled. In that case also the power had been filed in the Court by the counsel for the opposite parties. The filing of caveat in the court is equivalent to filing of power on behalf of opposite parties and once it is known that a caveat has been filed the office should report this fact.

14. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jang Singh v. Brij Lal (AIR 1966 SC 1631), has observed in para 6 as under :- "It is, therefore, quite clear that if there was an error the Court and its officers largely contributed to it. It is no doubt true that a litigant must be vigilant and take care but where a litigant goes to Court and asks for the assistance of the Court so that his obligations under à decree might be ful- filled by him strictly, it is incumbent on the Court, if it does not leave the litigant to his own devices, to ensure that the correct information is furnished. If the Court in supply-ing the information makes a mistake the responsibility of the litigant, though it does not altogether cease, is at least shared by the Court. If the litigant acts on the faith of that information the Courts cannot hold him responsible for a mistake which it itself caused. There is no higher principle for the guidance of the Court than the one that no act of Courts should harm a litigant and it is the bounden duty of Courts to see that if a person is harmed by a mistake of the Court he should be restored to the position he would have occupied but for that mistake. This is aptly summed up in the maxim: "Actus curiae neminem gravabit."

6. The Counsel for the petitioner also places reliance on the judgment of the Rajashthan High Court in the case of Pashupati Nath Arora vs Registrar, Cooperative Societies and others: AIR 1983 RAJASTHAN 191, wherein, following was observed: "1. This is all about validity of a 'caveat'. Sub-rules (3) and (4) of Rule 139 of the Rajasthan High Court Rules are as under:-- "(3) Where an appeal, petition or application is expected to be lodged or has been lodged but is pending admission, any person claiming a right to appear before the Court on the hearing of such appeal, petition or application may lodge a caveat in the matter thereof, and shall thereupon be entitled to receive from the Registrar notice of the lodging of the appeal, petition or application or at the time of the lodging of the caveat, such appeal, petition or application has not vet been lodged. and if and when the appeal, petition or application has been lodged. to require the appellant, petitioner or applicant to serve him with copy of the appeal. petition or application and t0 furnish him at his own expense, with copies of any papers lodged by the appellant. petitioner or applicant, in support of his appeal, petition or application. The caveator shall forthwith after lodging his caveat, give notice thereof to the appellant, petitioner or applicant, as the case may be, if the appeal, petitioner application has been lodged. (4) Where a caveat has been lodged as aforesaid, notice of the hearing of the appeal, petition or application shall be given to the cavea or, but a caveater shall not be entitled to costs of the appeal, petition or application unless the Court, otherwise orders."

7. It is clear that no right have flow in favour of the petitioner by virtue of the selection arose and thus no right to have heard and was rightly not heard.

8. It is further clarified that the petitioner never had a locus either to contest the appeal or to contest the proceedings at the instance of the original allottee. I do not see any good warrant interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition is dismissed. Order Date :- 29.4.2025 akverma ASHOK KUMAR VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Petitioner :- Ram Kumar Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Of Food And Civil Supplies Lko. And 6 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Shikha Srivastava,Pallavi Singh,Richa Srivastava,Suneel Kumar Singh Kalhans Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Rajesh Kumar Singh Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.

1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel and Sri Satish Kumar Sharma, who has filed Vakalatnama on behalf of respondent no.7. The Vakalatnama is taken on record.

2. The present petition has been filed challenging the order dated 21.04.2025 whereby, the appeal preferred by the respondent no.7 was admitted and an interim order was passed in favour of the respondent no.7.

3. The contention of the Counsel for the petitioner is that after the cancellation of the license of the respondent no.7, in an open meeting, the petitioner was selected and the selection was subject to the approval by the Tehsil Level Committee, as such, he has filed a caveat in appeal, however, he was not heard prior to passing of the order dated 21.04.2025 by the appellate authority. The Counsel for the petitioner relying upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ram Kumar vs State of U.P. and others: AIR 2022 SC 4704 to argue that the petitioner had a right to be heard.

4. Considering the said judgment, the fact remains that the petitioner had not even been allotted the fair price shop in question and only a recommendation has been made in his favour, the judgment in the case of Ram Kumar (Supra) would of no avail considering the fact that the petitioner has no right till the allotment happened in his favour.

5. The Counsel for the petitioner further places reliance on the judgment of this Court in the case of S.S. Barathokey vs Chairman, U.P. Seeds and Tarai Development Corporation Limited: Writ Petition No.4537 (SS) of 1992, decided on 19.04.1993, wherein, Chapter XXII Rule 5 was interpreted and the following was observed in paras 13 and 14: "13. A single Judge of this Court in the case of Nainital Bank Limited V. Munsif, Nainital and others (1992(1) LDR 70) has held that an interim order which has been passed in absence of a party who has put in appear- ance, is to be recalled. In that case also the power had been filed in the Court by the counsel for the opposite parties. The filing of caveat in the court is equivalent to filing of power on behalf of opposite parties and once it is known that a caveat has been filed the office should report this fact.

14. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jang Singh v. Brij Lal (AIR 1966 SC 1631), has observed in para 6 as under :- "It is, therefore, quite clear that if there was an error the Court and its officers largely contributed to it. It is no doubt true that a litigant must be vigilant and take care but where a litigant goes to Court and asks for the assistance of the Court so that his obligations under à decree might be ful- filled by him strictly, it is incumbent on the Court, if it does not leave the litigant to his own devices, to ensure that the correct information is furnished. If the Court in supply-ing the information makes a mistake the responsibility of the litigant, though it does not altogether cease, is at least shared by the Court. If the litigant acts on the faith of that information the Courts cannot hold him responsible for a mistake which it itself caused. There is no higher principle for the guidance of the Court than the one that no act of Courts should harm a litigant and it is the bounden duty of Courts to see that if a person is harmed by a mistake of the Court he should be restored to the position he would have occupied but for that mistake. This is aptly summed up in the maxim: "Actus curiae neminem gravabit."

6. The Counsel for the petitioner also places reliance on the judgment of the Rajashthan High Court in the case of Pashupati Nath Arora vs Registrar, Cooperative Societies and others: AIR 1983 RAJASTHAN 191, wherein, following was observed: "1. This is all about validity of a 'caveat'. Sub-rules (3) and (4) of Rule 139 of the Rajasthan High Court Rules are as under:-- "(3) Where an appeal, petition or application is expected to be lodged or has been lodged but is pending admission, any person claiming a right to appear before the Court on the hearing of such appeal, petition or application may lodge a caveat in the matter thereof, and shall thereupon be entitled to receive from the Registrar notice of the lodging of the appeal, petition or application or at the time of the lodging of the caveat, such appeal, petition or application has not vet been lodged. and if and when the appeal, petition or application has been lodged. to require the appellant, petitioner or applicant to serve him with copy of the appeal. petition or application and t0 furnish him at his own expense, with copies of any papers lodged by the appellant. petitioner or applicant, in support of his appeal, petition or application. The caveator shall forthwith after lodging his caveat, give notice thereof to the appellant, petitioner or applicant, as the case may be, if the appeal, petitioner application has been lodged. (4) Where a caveat has been lodged as aforesaid, notice of the hearing of the appeal, petition or application shall be given to the cavea or, but a caveater shall not be entitled to costs of the appeal, petition or application unless the Court, otherwise orders."

7. It is clear that no right have flow in favour of the petitioner by virtue of the selection arose and thus no right to have heard and was rightly not heard.

8. It is further clarified that the petitioner never had a locus either to contest the appeal or to contest the proceedings at the instance of the original allottee. I do not see any good warrant interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition is dismissed. Order Date :- 29.4.2025 akverma ASHOK KUMAR VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench